WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB v. Nick Jones

Case No. D2021-0703

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB, Sweden, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Nick Jones, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sebgroups.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 9, 2021. On March 9, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 10, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 18, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 9, 2021.

The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Founded in 1856, Complainant is a financial services group, serving 400,000 small and medium-sized companies, with over 4 million private individual customers in Sweden and the Baltic countries alone. In addition, SEB has around 27,000 private banking customers in and outside Sweden and serves corporate customers from numerous countries worldwide. The Complainant has offices in international financial centers such as New York, London, Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong and Singapore. During 2019, the Complainant generated revenue of SEK 65 billion, with approximately 15,000 employees working in more than 100 countries worldwide.

The Complainant owns the following registered trademarks:

- SEBGROUP, Benelux Trademark Registration No. 777227, registered on November 16, 2005 in international class 36;
- THE SEB GROUP, Denmark Trademark Registration No. VR 1980 01836, registered on April 25, 1980 in international class 36;
- THE SEB GROUP, Denmark Trademark Registration No. 106432, registered on October 30, 1980 in international class 36;
- THE SEB GROUP, International Trademark Registration No. 794124, registered on December 13, 2002 in international class 36 (designating various jurisdictions);
- THE SEB GROUP, Sweden Trademark Registration No. 368285, registered on December 6, 2002 in international classes 16, 35 and 36;
- SEB, Sweden Trademark Registration No. 118604, registered on January 20, 1967 in international classes 36 and 42; and
- SEB, United States Trademark Registration No. 2,643,199, registered on October 29, 2002 in international classes 16, 35 and 36.

The foregoing trademarks are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “SEBGROUP Mark”. The Complainant has marketed and sold its goods and services using the SEBGROUP Mark since 1856, has spent substantial time, effort, and money promoting the SEBGROUP Mark worldwide, and as a result, the Complainant has developed substantial goodwill in the SEBGROUP Mark.

In addition, the Complainant owns the domain names <seb.se> and <sebgroup.com>, both of which point to the Complainant’s principal websites at “www.seb.se” and “www.sebgroup.com”, which websites provide information regarding the Complainant’s products and services. The Complainant maintains a strong Internet and retail presence through these websites, as well as through its various social media platforms.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 11, 2020 and resolves to a blank page without any content.

The Complainant sent cease-and-desist letters to the Respondent on August 19, 2020, August 26, 2020 and a final reminder letter, requesting that the Respondent transfer the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. The Respondent initially replied stating it was willing to cooperate, even providing the authorization code. However, the Disputed Domain Name remained locked, and the Respondent stopped replying to the Complainant’s emails.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The following are the Complainant’s contentions:

- the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
- the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i-iii)):

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SEBGROUP Mark.

It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the SEBGROUP Mark based on its numerous years of use as well as its registered trademarks for the SEBGROUP Mark worldwide. The general rule is that “registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive”. See CWI, Inc. v. Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot, WIPO Case No. D2015-734. The Respondent has not rebutted this presumption, and therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the SEBGROUP Mark.

The Disputed Domain Name <sebgroups.com> consists of the SEBGROUP Mark in its entirety, although misspelled by only adding one letter -- the letter “s” in “group”, and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Such a minor modification to a trademark is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and seeks to wrongfully take advantage of errors by a user in typing a domain name into a web browser. The misspelling of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to the SEBGROUP Mark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9 (“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”); see also Silversea Cruises, Ltd. v. Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Domain Vault, Domain Vault LLC, WIPO Case No. D2018-2306 (“The Domain Name [silverseas.com] is virtually identical to the SILVERSEA trademark but for the addition of the letter ‘s’ creating a plural version of the SILVERSEA trademark. The addition of the letter ‘s’ does not distinguish the Domain Name from the SILVERSEA trademark and is a common form of typosquatting”).

Further, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. Thus, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s the SEBGROUP Mark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, a complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of production of evidence that demonstrates rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its SEBGROUP Mark. Nor does the Complainant have any type of business relationship with the Respondent. Finally, the name of the Respondent has no apparent connection to the Disputed Domain Name that would suggest that it is related to a trademark or trade name in which the Respondent has rights.

Moreover, the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website that resolves to a blank page and lacks content. As such, the Respondent has failed to make use of the resolving website and has not demonstrated any attempt to make legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name and website. Such conduct evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and thus, is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Muhammad Faisal, WIPO Case No. D2016-0621 (the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names as they are being used passively).

Finally, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, comprising the entirety of the SEBGROUP Mark with the addition of the letter “s” to make it plural, carries a risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use here, as it effectively suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

First, the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent’s website demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. Based on the circumstances here, the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to target the Complainant’s SEBGROUP Mark and to drive Internet traffic seeking the Complainant’s services to the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves, albeit one with no content. See paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Moreover, the registration of a domain name that reproduces a trademark in its entirety (being identical or confusingly similar to such trademark) by an individual or entity that has no relationship to that mark, without any reasonable explanation on the motives for the registration, may be suggestive of opportunistic bad faith. See Ebay Inc. v. Wangming, WIPO Case No. D2006-1107; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163.

Second, the Panel concludes that the Respondent demonstrated knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights and a bad faith intent to register and use the Disputed Domain Name. By using the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to the Respondent’s website, it is highly likely that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant, its business, and its SEBGROUP Mark when creating the Disputed Domain Name. As the Complainant has promoted and sold its goods and services using the SEBGROUP Mark since 1856, well before the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name on June 11, 2020, there is no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its SEBGROUP Mark and was thus intentionally capitalizing on potential customer confusion. In light of the circumstances in this case, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant’s SEBGROUP Mark at the time the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

Third, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name that contains a misspelling of the SEBGROUP Mark in an effort to take advantage of a typographical error is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Nutricia International BV v. Eric Starling, WIPO Case No. D2015-0773. The Panel concludes that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s rights in the SEBGROUP Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, since it added the letter “s” to the word “group” to misdirect users from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website by capitalizing on typing mistakes made by users. See ESPN, Inc. v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 (“It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name.”).

Finally, inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A. v. ChinaVogue.com, WIPO Case No. D2005-0615; Société pour l’Oeuvre et la Mémoire d’Antoine de Saint Exupéry – Succession Saint Exupéry – D’Agay v. Perlegos Properties, WIPO Case No. D2005-1085. It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without a legitimate purpose may indicate that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574. Here, the Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive landing page, thus demonstrating bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <sebgroups.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Lynda M. Braun
Sole Panelist
Date: May 18, 2021